Agenda item
Proposed Changes to the Planning Code of Practice
The report advises Members of proposed changes to the Council’s Planning Code of Practice.
Minutes:
Looqman Desai (the Council’s Senior Solicitor, Governance) presented the report which informed Members of the proposed changes to the Council’s Planning Code of Practice. Mr Desai said that the Planning Code of Practice supplemented the Members’ Code of Conduct by providing additional guidance on behaviours expected of all Members and Members of the Planning Committee in particular. The Committee heard that the proposed changes were part of a wider review of the Constitution related to planning procedures, conducted under the supervision of the Constitutional Working Group (CWG). Mr Desai directed Members’ attention to paragraph 3.3 of the report (page 108 to the Agenda pack) which summarised the key changes proposed. He also mentioned that two issues which had been raised at the last meeting of the Committee had been included in the revised Planning Code of Practice - paragraph 30 dealt with the issue of meetings between relevant Members of Cabinet and developers, while paragraph 33 addressed pre-application discussions and discussions about undecided applications (page 117 and 118 to the Agenda pack). Mr Desai stressed that particular care had been taken when drafting this aspect of the code and that reference to “discussions” was broad and focused on the subject matter rather than the form of discussions. He explained that guidance issued by the Local Government Association (LGA) and other standards of good practice had been considered. Furthermore, the code is being independently reviewed by a planning expert and that any recommendations for further improvements to the code would be the subject of further consideration. Finally, the code would be reported to Full Council on 22 January 2018 for approval.
Amar Dave (the Council’s Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment) informed the Committee that Councillor Perrin, who had sent his apologies, wished the new requirements on pre-application discussions etc. to refer specifically to breakfast, lunch or dinner meetings. Mr Desai responded that the code already made adequate provision for such meetings by focusing on the subject matter of such discussions rather than their timing or whether they were formal or informal. He said that the requirements aimed to strike a proper balance between promoting public confidence in the integrity of the planning process and the legitimate reality of local government life. For example, additional controls had targeted matters of strong public interest, such as pre-application and application discussions. This led to a question about how notes of meetings with developers would be made available to the public. Mr Desai advised that according to the LGA guide, notes should be placed on the relevant planning file. Members generally indicated their approval of this practice.
In response to a question on what being “actually biased” meant which was referred to in paragraph 5 of the code (article 5 on page 112 to the Agenda pack), Mr Desai explained that actual bias occurred in a situation where the decision maker had a direct or financial interest in the outcome of a decision and it occurred rarely. The term ‘actually biased’ had been used to draw a distinction between the two types of bias recognised by the law: namely, actual bias and apparent bias which is when it might appear to a fair minded and informed observer that there was a real possibility of bias. He said that once the code had been approved, further guidance and a Monitoring Officer Advice Notice could be issued to help Members understand specific terms. Furthermore, there would be specialised training on the Planning Code of Practice for Members appointed to the Planning Committee. Members suggested that payments of Special Responsibility Allowances should be made conditional upon satisfying any mandatory training requirements.
Regarding declaring approaches at meetings, Alice Lester (the Council’s Head of Planning Transport and Licensing) said that Members currently declared if they had been asked to speak on someone’s behalf and this worked well. Carolyn Downs (the Council’s Chief Executive) reminded Members that Councillors who sat on the Planning Committee had to make independent decisions on planning matters placed in front of them, irrespective of any conversations they might have had. Furthermore, there was no legal rule against Members discussing applications.
The Independent Member acknowledged the reputational risk for the Council if the review of the code was not carried out correctly. He also commented on the need to follow best practice.
In response to a Member’s enquiry about the benefits of deferring an application when Members are minded to make a decision contrary to officer recommendations, Ms Lester explained that this was still possible and that in the future if the Planning Committee did not wish to defer the application, the matter would need to be put a vote first.
Due to the limited time available prior to the deadline for submission of reports to be presented at Full Council, it was agreed that an updated version of the Planning Code of Practice would be circulated to Members electronically and they would be able to make further comments at the Full Council meeting.
RESOLVED that:
(i) The Proposed Changes to the Planning Code of Practice report, which would be reported to Full Council for approval on 22 January 2018, be noted.
(ii) An update report on any issues arising under the code be presented to the Audit Advisory Committee in 12 months.
Supporting documents:
- 10. Proposed Changes to the Planning Code of Practice, item 9. PDF 95 KB
- 10a. Planning Code of Practice (tracked changes), item 9. PDF 262 KB